What are the pros and cons of the iPF5100 compared to the Epson 3800 and 4880?

See also What are the differences between the iPF5100 and iPF5000?
See also the Epson 3800 FAQ by Eric Chan to help with your purchase decision.
See also the Luminous Landscape thread Epson x880 series vs. Canon x100 Series

Feature	Canon IPF5100	Epson 3800	Epson 4880
Ink Wasted to switch blacks	None	1.5 ml / 4.5 ml	90 ml / 90 ml
Time to Switch black ink	None	1:55 / 2:55 minutes	20 minutes / 20 minutes
Cost of Roundtrip Switch	None	$4.14	$68.40
Roll Feed	Yes (now built-in, was an option for the iPF5000)	No	Yes
Roll Feed Motorized	Yes (makes loading the roll extremely easy)	Not applicable	No
Roll Length Tracking	Yes (prints barcode & reads it when roll reloaded)	Not applicable	No
Roll and sheets loaded at same time	Yes (roll unloads automatically when use top manual feed)	Not applicable	No
Minimum Paper Size	8X10 (some have printed 7X10 notecard paper from the Cassette without problems)	4X6	8X10
Maximum Print Length	59 feet using roll feed (50 feet from printer driver)	Limited to 37.4 inches	Limited by application, OS, driver or RIP
Borderless Printing	Full borderless only available with roll printing	Yes, some limitations	Check Epson info
Size of Ink Cartridges	130 ml (starter cartridges are only 90 ml)	80 ml	110/220 ml
Cost of Ink per ml	58 cents	60 cents (vs. 86 cents for Epson 2400)	48cents/39 cents
Ink usage	May be less due to having Red, Green and Blue colors	Uses two inks to produce Red, Green and Blue	Uses two inks to produce Red, Green and Blue
Ink use (ml/square ft)	About 0.5-0.8 ml per LL 0.8-1.1 in my tests, 1.5 for darkest prints	About 1.5 ml/sq ft.	About 1.5 ml/sq ft.
Print Using Qimage	Works fine through driver, can't be used with plugin	Yes	Yes
Clogging Problems	None reported	Very few problems reported compared to earlier Epson printers	May be improved over Epson 4800
Ink wasted on cleaning	Less than 10% per Canon; about 0.35-0.81 ml per day according to reports in this FAQ	Probably similar to 4800	Unknown
Weight	99 lbs. (108 lbs with roll feed)	43 lbs.	88 lbs.
Size	39 X 29 X 12.5 see Dimensions	27 X 15 X 10 inches	33 X 30 X 14 inches
Gamut	Better in blues	Better in warmer colors	Better in warmer colors
Grayscale Range	Reported better by Luminous Landscape	Unknown	Unknown
Quality of B&W Prints	Very good, extremely neutral	Outstanding	Outstanding
Ink Water Resistant	Not as water resistant as Epson K3 on some papers per Wiki posters. If you rub a wet finger on a print some papers smudge very easily, particularly in blue areas. Other papers appear to be without problems.	Yes.	Yes.
Gloss Differential & Bronzing	Lowest bronzing per Scott Martin	Excellent	Excellent
Relative Rendering Intent has Blackpoint Compensation Available	NO for plugin; workaround available; Yes if printing from Photoshop through regular 8 bit driver	Yes	Yes
Printing from Cassette	Banding in last inch on sheets fed from Cassette; fix is now available	OK	OK
Paper Transport Issues Causing Smuding/Head Strikes	No (can set vacuum/head height); Exception: Some have reported head strikes on Fine Art Pearl, Museo Silver Rag and Harman Gloss FB AL, which can generally be resolved by changing settings	Reported for Epson 3800 here but apparently easily worked around	No (can set vacuum)
Quantity/Quality of supplied profiles	Fair/good - Canon profiles for plugin here.	Excellent	Excellent
Sound level	60 -> 56 db at 1 meter per Luminous Landscape (a lot quieter)	Unknown	62 db at 1 meter per Luminous Landscape
Consistency Between Printers	Canon claims inter-unit variation within 2 delta E using built-in calibration	Good	Good
Quality of Manufacturer website	Fair	Good	Good
Documentation	Fair (the reason for this Wiki)	Good	Good

Comment by Tony Bonanno: I've had a bunch of Epsons and I print a fair amount for myself and clients. I went through three Epson 17" PRO 4000's. I've had two Epson R2400's (for small cut sheet).. I've had the 2200, R800, and the older ones back when they first came out with "photo" printers (1200, 870, etc.). So I think I can give you a little perspective. I live at 7000 ft and relatively low humidity. The fact that I've been using the 5000 for six months now WITHOUT EVEN ONE nozzle clog or nozzle issue has made the Canon's problems seem minor. You cannot believe how much ink (and money), those big Epson's (PRO 4000's) cost me in clearing out nozzle clogs and air in the ink lines. I'm talking hours of down time, and hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in wasted ink. The Canon has excellent print quality, and lots of good features. The iPF5000 would probably still be my choice.. at least at this time. Oh, I should mention that the Epsons I've owned all had banding issues from time to time.